Another 11.2x72 Schuler cal rifle joins the family. This is my 3rd rifle in this caliber.

This was posted for sale about a year ago in a classified forum. I can't believe it didn't sell... lucky me !

The posting included the following information.

"...I picked this up last week to help a friend out ... and I really have no use for it. I thought I would post it on here to see if anyone had any interest.The makers name is on the pic of the rib.It has a 24" octagon to round full ribbed barrel and the LOP is 14 3/8" to front of the double set trigger and weighs under 8.5 lb.Most questions can be answered by the pics. Brass dies and a bullet sizer .450 to .440 is included. ..."

information from others added this ...

"... Perhaps "FR. TENHAEFF UTRECHT" (found on the rib) is actually a small retail sporting good shop that had their name added and sold this rifle. ..."

As in the past, if anyone can help to interpret the makings and the maker and year of production, it would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.buckstix.com/buckpics/11.2x72-000.jpg



http://www.buckstix.com/buckpics/11.2x72-0000.jpg

That's a beautiful rifle. I can't believe that it didn't sell quickly. Was it priced to sell?

quote:

Originally posted by fjrdoc:
That's a beautiful rifle. I can't believe that it didn't sell quickly. Was it priced to sell?

Well, yes. The price was very fare. A bit less than my other 2 that I posted about here.

https://forums.accuratereloadi...4711043/m/9931060472

https://forums.accuratereloadi...4711043/m/7491004872

Is it usable with the stock damage behind the tang?

quote:

Originally posted by rikkochet:
Is it usable with the stock damage behind the tang?

That stock "damage" as you call it is superficial. It merely a chip in the surface and does not affect the structure of the stock. It is already being addressed and a cosmetic repair is underway.

Thanks, it looks wide and deep on my screen.

Well, as a side note: Here is a warning about using someone else's hand-loads. As the original pictures show, this rifle came with some hand-loaded ammo. The seller assured me that the original owner of the rifle, that loaded the ammo, was a careful trustworthy reloader. The load data that was written on the box read ... "400g Woodleigh sp, 85g 3031, CCI 250 magnum primers". I have been loading for this cartridge for about 8 years, and have never seen such a HOT load with 3031 powder. The 1992 Handloader Magazine #144, lists a 400g bullet and 3031 powder with a 76.0g starting load, and 80.0g max load. When I pulled the bullets of the hand-loaded ammo, I found powder weighing from 87g up to 90g. NEVER, NEVER, trust anyone's hand-loaded ammo without carefully inspecting it. The only hand-loads I trust, are my own.

quote:

Originally posted by buckstix:
Well, as a side note: Here is a warning about using someone else's hand-loads. As the original pictures show, this rifle came with some hand-loaded ammo. The seller assured me that the original owner of the rifle, that loaded the ammo, was a careful trustworthy reloader. The load data that was written on the box read ... "400g Woodleigh sp, 85g 3031, CCI 250 magnum primers". I have been loading for this cartridge for about 8 years, and have never seen such a HOT load with 3031 powder. The 1992 Handloader Magazine #144, lists a 400g bullet and 3031 powder with a 76.0g starting load, and 80.0g max load. When I pulled the bullets of the hand-loaded ammo, I found powder weighing from 87g up to 90g. NEVER, NEVER, trust anyone's hand-loaded ammo without carefully inspecting it. The only hand-loads I trust, are my own.

Ah, that probably explains the stock damage at the tang then, some good dose's of recoil

On a more serious note it seems a big error in powder weights. I suppose you can only assume it is 3031 powder and not a slower powder the owner used in the loads without changing the box labelling, as careless as that is in it's self.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:Ah, that probably explains the stock damage at the tang then, some good dose's of recoil

On a more serious note it seems a big error in powder weights. I suppose you can only assume it is 3031 powder and not a slower powder the owner used in the loads without changing the box labeling, as careless as that is in it's self.

As stated above, That stock damage is superficial only to the surface. Its a chip that does not affect the structure of the stock. And yes, no doubt the powder was 3031. Its kernels are very distinctive and easily confirmed.

Hello All,

I finally had some nice weather to test some loads. I tested some light loads with 300g bullets, and some full loads with 400g bullets. All were shot with the peep site's small aperture. The light loads that came with the rifle shot higher and had velocity spread "all over the place" - ranging from a low of 1404 fps to a high of 1631 fps. Since I didn't load these, I suspect this was due to poor loading technique and not just poor performance of the lighter bullet. I also loaded the same full house loads from when I tested the IMMAN 11.2x72 Schuler a while back. I posted about it here: https://forums.accuratereloadi...4711043/m/7491004872

I noticed a "significant" difference in felt recoil with this lighter Mannlicher. It weighed 8.5 pounds and had 68 ft/lbs recoil, whereas the Imman weighed 11 pounds and only had 53 ft/lbs recoil. That 15 ft/lbs difference in recoil energy was noticeable, and much less pleasant to shoot.

It is important to note that the load with the 400g bullet (bullets deep seated to an overall loaded length of 3.300") easily achieved 2,350 fps and would make an excellent load for Africa, having the same performance as the 404 Jeffery but with a greater sectional density. It is also more potent than a 375 H&H. Energy at 100 yards for the 11.2x72 Schuler is 4,170 ft/lbs, compared to only 3,125 ft/lbs for the 375 H&H.

as always comments are most welcome

.

http://www.buckstix.com/buckpics/11.2x72-TARG-SM.jpg



.

http://www.buckstix.com/buckpics/11.2x72-TARG2-SM.jpg